Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
in nearly the past three years, and the whole fiasco added to the deficit. host: after the news conference yesterday, house speaker john boehner responded with this statement -- " what are your thoughts on this? if the debt ceiling negotiable. some quick comments -- remember, you can post your comments on twitter. the first phone call is from maryland, a democratic caller, jill. caller: i don't believe the debt ceiling is negotiable. it is kind of ridiculous that the money is already owed, so why are we not going to pay what is owed to other people? if people have made investments, the bills have to be paid. i find it ridiculous that people in congress don't want to pay what is already owed. it does not make sense. host: here is the wall street journal this morning. caller: well, if you're asking me if that's true, i think there definitely needs to be somewhat of a compromise as far as spending cuts, but that is not an easy issue, because spending cuts mean job losses. it's not an easy thing to say a president will say we will stop paying the bills too. so there has to be compromised rehab
in that regard, and they haven't experience environmental problems. and with new york's budget deficit, it seems obvious that hydrofracking is the way to go. and, of course, governor cuomo is free to set whatever regulations he wants about that to ensure the safety of quality and other things that residents are concerned about. i would say that the project should proceed. it's brought benefit to other states. there's no reason that new york should be left behind. >> okay. right in front. wait for the mic a fun. >> you get very good examples of unsuccessful creations of new green jobs. had also looked at elimination of existing jobs like really good cost-benefit analysis done for regulations? >> the cost-benefit analysis for mercury was a travesty. if you look at the cost-benefit analysis carefully, all the benefits from reducing mercury came from getting rid of particulates and particulates were not the focus of that particular regulation. and what was interesting is the benefits focus on additional days of school. in other words, a few days of schools miss, two days of work missed because of lo
deficits, america cannot afford another debate with this congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up. >> bill: so the question -- so why should the president entertain this notion that the debt ceiling which republicans voted for 19 times under george w. bush without a peep, you know, why should he entertain the notion that suddenly this is a matter of big negotiations? >> well, he's trying to say that he shouldn't but unfortunately the house republicans have the majority in congress. unfortunately for him, so when he says he doesn't want to debate it and negotiate over it, he is running up against the fact that people who have the power in the house do want to debate it and that can cause problems. he certainly is pushing this idea here to try to remove this from the realm of what he wants and the american people see as rational debate. he used a lot of words yesterday that were very strong to try to make people see this as what he called an absurd way of approaching this. he talked about this being like holding a gun to your head or ransom. this
't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that fed
in the late 1980's when we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. but we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, by the time we got to hurricane katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40% of it. but we didn't learn. we didn't learn from those mistakes and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where we're at $16 trillion today and it's incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this. and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. i wish very much that we weren't here today. i wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money, without any questions whatsoever. but we've wasted that opportunity. we've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. think about that for a second. in the united states of america we do not have enough money to take care of our own c
deficit hawk. the republican senate committee budget guru, and he is offsetting most of the first slice. the bill's actually two pieces, 17 billion and 34 billion. and he's offsetting the 17 billion portion with a across-the-board cut. so it'll be interesting to see if that passes or not. you know, all democrats will vote against it, and i suspect that it will fail. but it'll be interesting to see. for him it's important because they want to establish the principle that emergency spending needs to be offset with spending cuts. which is something that democrats are very afraid of, because they feel like every time there's a disaster, republicans use it as an excuse to go after domestic programs, social services and so forth. so that'll be an important precedent, and then we'll see what happens in the senate. you know, we'll probably see a house/senate conference on the bill or some ping-ponging between the chambers and probably delaying final enactment. >> host: yeah. and the washington times reporting this morning that the conservative group for growth is threatening to punish members w
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8